CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } Published on 8 April 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 17037/20 H.M. and X.M. against Greece lodged on 23 April 2020 communicated on 19 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the living conditions of the applicants, a mother with a newborn baby at the time of lodging their application with the Court. They lived in a tent in the forest outside Samos “hotspot”. The applicants rely on Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the fact that the first applicant was at an advanced stage of pregnancy, and subsequently a mother with a newborn (the second applicant), and with further regard to the allegations of the first applicant about the lack of access to healthcare, were the applicants’ living conditions in Samos “hotspot” compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?